Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Another Child Grooming Gang Busted - 32 Charged
Options
Comments
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Give over with the faux indignation, you’re obviously beside yourself with glee at your own cleverness.
I didn’t say you said all Muslims are paedos, it’s quite obvious from what you are saying though, that you’re trying to imply the vast majority of Muslims ARE paedos...
Your intentions are clear, bad faith and straw men is your game.
Not sure what how the USA college stuff is relevant, but sure whateves.
We're done0 -
different culture which you have no knowledge of and neither do the majority
of catholic "moral brigade\western society"==
let me remind you Bible mary "mother" was estimated as 14 years of age
hence being impregnated by whatever means is today pedophile.
Mary ? The Virgin Mary ? Christians don't believe Mary had sex to conceive Jesus. Also Marys age is not given, you can point to common marriage age at the time but Marys age is not given of when she married Joseph.
More than likely but then again my great grandparents and ancestors are not held up as the greatest example to mankind the last true and final prophet of God and a template for how we should now, today live our lives. So important and influential that even satire or mockery is met with murder.good chance your great or grandparents or their generation may have births at 12 to 14 years of age.
Western culture and modern Christianity has the ability to be informed by the knowledge of the times exampled by Europe raising the age of consent through time as more understanding of childhood development was attained. islam on the other hand states that muhammad was perfect and thats how we should live our lives and any attempt to modernise or innovate islam is bidʻah and not allowed.0 -
I have read some very odd things in this thread:
1. In areas in England that have high levels of West Asians there only exists impoverished white kids and no black or brown ones.
2. People join paedophile rape gangs out of opportunism.
3. People who work at night are more likely to get involved in child rape.
4 Maajid Nawaz, who recently single highhandedly started a campaign to highlight the plight of the Rohingya Muslims in China is out to destroy the reputation of Muslim in Britain.
5. The media report and get *hysterical* about large grooming gangs, except when the perpetrators are white.
6. Asians grooming gangs are a 'myth'. They don't exist.
And that's just from reading a few pages. I'm sure there's much more like that.0 -
"understanding of childhood development was attained".Mary ? The Virgin Mary ? Christians don't believe Mary had sex to conceive Jesus. Also Marys age is not given, you can point to common marriage age at the time but Marys age is not given of when she married Joseph.
More than likely but then again my great grandparents and ancestors are not held up as the greatest example to mankind the last true and final prophet of God and a template for how we should now, today live our lives. So important and influential that even satire or mockery is met with murder.
Western culture and modern Christianity has the ability to be informed by the knowledge of the times exampled by Europe raising the age of consent through time as more understanding of childhood development was attained. islam on the other hand states that muhammad was perfect and thats how we should live our lives and any attempt to modernise or innovate islam is bidʻah and not allowed.
this was\is nothing more than created psychology craft .
designed to give reasons why, to suit political whims.
i will remind you schools\ing was for the elite as trainees to take over from parents to
rule estates\property\kingdoms etc. the "finer" education ie great colleges eaton\oxford etc. where
where the ofspring of the elite whom were of no particular use at time went for "period of time"
between teen years and gaining authority\position as accepted person in the likes of the higher
echelons of life.
Younger worked in factories and when the industrial revolution and mechanisation saw no need
for the young to do menial jobs they were "out on the street" . this led to large numbers\gangs of youngsters
making noise\trouble etc. which upset the "regulated society".
Education was profered to train the youngsters in etiquette (remember child should be seen not heard),
the issue led to the forming of institutions to house the young and basically teach them manners
with the basic 3 Rs whilst the parents\guardians whom worked or could not control them during
normal daylight hours where relieved of the duty. (this led to LAW that the young be in attendance
and off the street with fines\imprisonment for parents as punishment. those unruly whom defied LAWS
and the authorities and parents found themselves in institutions eg Borstal). it was hide the young and
control them in another manner than which was once in work.
the difference between the elite and others has been visible and still is today despite equality laws.
it is a minute minority of youngsters that can gain entrance to the elite colleges eg eaton etc.
hence the ongoing class structure.
AS stated the raising of age is from religious as "do not before and outside marriage" this a power grab.
the politicians also use it as a "coral" and control method.
you mentioned joseph well JUST how many wives\bed mates did he have and the children that came forth.
god and christian bible did not ban multiple marriage\partners "todays terminology" . it is politicians in last100 years
that have rewritten laws banning polygamy. this then caused the "religious" sects issues as they had followed
the scriptures\bible etc and now they proved themselves FAKE as their religion turned to man made law
to follow (to stay out of trouble) hence their religion etc. was made worthless.
I believe a small branch of the Mormons defy man made laws by working around it. it can be seen the usa authorities
have persecuted them for continuing their religious beliefs with major false accusations and intimidation.
It is noticeable religious orders outside of the major such as jew\catholic\protestant whom gain a bit of power by numbers
is attacked with the resulting authority led and perpertrated death and destruction of the religious sect eg waco.
it is clear the religious line of thought and what can be termed brainwashing giving You a very narrow mental ability
to see both ends of the issue\s.
power and authority is the goal of both religion and politics both orchestrated by humans on earth, playing on human weakness and empathy to coral the weak into groups to use for power eg. if i got 90 million usa citizens to vote for NO drug offences, thus decriminalising
the use of -- i would be elected president with a majority. REAL life once the movement gained momentum i would
be killed by the authorities along with campaign to discredit my name and those walking with me. You can see this even
with the recent usa election, where media was used to the full in a nasty manner by both repubs and dems.
THE lack of ability and \or lazyness of citizens is what has allowed the politicians to get away with the fake laws
built on "morals". === moral is not a fact and cannot be supported by a factual argumen, the politicians scream
about morals then when crowd swaying make fake laws based on non factual morals.0 -
*Not all Muslims are paedos....
However, if they adhere to the teachings of their religion and subscribe to the hero worship of the barbarian Mohammed as is part and parcel of it. Then certainly a very very large cohort of practicing Muslims are at least ok with the idea of child rape/child sexual slavery as a normal thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't want to insult you but this is quite difficult to read, if not a bit meandering.
The Christian faith can (has the ability to) "move with the times" for lack of better phrase although not as fast as people would like they still lag behind quite a bit in aspects. islam however cannot, it is a rigid set of laws and practices that cannot be changed lest they be guilty of bidah (innovation) they must aspire to have the same values as a man from 600AD."understanding of childhood development was attained".
this was\is nothing more than created psychology craft .
designed to give reasons why, to suit political whims.i will remind you schools\ing was for the elite as trainees to take over from parents to
rule estates\property\kingdoms etc. the "finer" education ie great colleges eaton\oxford etc. where
where the ofspring of the elite whom were of no particular use at time went for "period of time"
between teen years and gaining authority\position as accepted person in the likes of the higher
echelons of life.
Younger worked in factories and when the industrial revolution and mechanisation saw no need
for the young to do menial jobs they were "out on the street" . this led to large numbers\gangs of youngsters
making noise\trouble etc. which upset the "regulated society".
Education was profered to train the youngsters in etiquette (remember child should be seen not heard),
the issue led to the forming of institutions to house the young and basically teach them manners
with the basic 3 Rs whilst the parents\guardians whom worked or could not control them during
normal daylight hours where relieved of the duty. (this led to LAW that the young be in attendance
and off the street with fines\imprisonment for parents as punishment. those unruly whom defied LAWS
and the authorities and parents found themselves in institutions eg Borstal). it was hide the young and
control them in another manner than which was once in work.
the difference between the elite and others has been visible and still is today despite equality laws.
it is a minute minority of youngsters that can gain entrance to the elite colleges eg eaton etc.
hence the ongoing class structure.
AS stated the raising of age is from religious as "do not before and outside marriage" this a power grab.
the politicians also use it as a "coral" and control method.
Not sure what this is in response to, so I'll leave it.
Scant little is written about Joseph in the gospels so to say he had multiple wives and children is just nonsense, it cant be backed up by any evidence. There are writings that posit he was a widower before he met Mary and that he lived to 111 years of age, these claims are spurious and are not accepted by the church.you mentioned joseph well JUST how many wives\bed mates did he have and the children that came forth.
god and christian bible did not ban multiple marriage\partners "todays terminology" . it is politicians in last100 years
that have rewritten laws banning polygamy. this then caused the "religious" sects issues as they had followed
the scriptures\bible etc and now they proved themselves FAKE as their religion turned to man made law
to follow (to stay out of trouble) hence their religion etc. was made worthless.
Polygamy is not taught in the New Testament, evidenced simply by the fact that the church always practiced the marriage of one man and one wife, you can debate divorce and the abuse of divorce by the rich and powerful but that the church never had an allowance for polygamy in marriage.
How is the bible proven to be fake ?
Religion has turned into man made law? The Church and christianity influenced the culture of the Roman Empire and then Western Europe, a lot of our laws grew from church teachings over the centuries. Is that what you mean, you seem to have gotten it backwards. Laws are passed nowadays that go against Christian teachings, which shows the separation of state and church. That hardly makes the religion "worthless".I believe a small branch of the Mormons defy man made laws by working around it. it can be seen the usa authorities
have persecuted them for continuing their religious beliefs with major false accusations and intimidation.
It is noticeable religious orders outside of the major such as jew\catholic\protestant whom gain a bit of power by numbers
is attacked with the resulting authority led and perpertrated death and destruction of the religious sect eg waco.
it is clear the religious line of thought and what can be termed brainwashing giving You a very narrow mental ability
to see both ends of the issue\s.
It is true that many people are persecuted for their religious beliefs, but not in the West as far as I can see. Christians are being persecuted in North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Eritrea, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, India and Syria. Muslims also face persecution in places such as China and India.
The west does not persecute any on the basis of their religious identity, instead they merely ask that religious identity one does not infringe upon the lives and practices of others and the state. Maybe don't claim to know my mental ability and I wont claim to know yours, no need to be insulting about people you don't know the first thing about.power and authority is the goal of both religion and politics both orchestrated by humans on earth, playing on human weakness and empathy to coral the weak into groups to use for power eg. if i got 90 million usa citizens to vote for NO drug offences, thus decriminalising
the use of -- .......
The rest is not on topic imo and I'm unclear of the point.0 -
--"hero worship of the barbarian" dont forget the romans and christian crusades along with papal inquisitions.smellyoldboot wrote: »*Not all Muslims are paedos....
However, if they adhere to the teachings of their religion and subscribe to the hero worship of the barbarian Mohammed as is part and parcel of it. Then certainly a very very large cohort of practicing Muslims are at least ok with the idea of child rape/child sexual slavery as a normal thing.
Once politicians in western "white" world paint a picture for political gains and YOU swallow the lot without question
and forget your own histories.
shows a lot of gullible post without a bit of research from all points of view and history.
i will point out the Fake "save the children" whilst hundreds of thousands of "children" have been killed\maimed\suffer
mental trauma and forced to flee their countries as refugees NOW PRESENT DAY buy majority white christian USA
interference\destruction and invasion of their countries ie afghanistan\libya\syria\iraq etc.
it is all fake headlines to stir citizens in one direction whilst hidng the politicians guilt in the above mentioned.0 -
"Christians are being persecuted in North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Eritrea, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, India and Syria"--I don't want to insult you but this is quite difficult to read, if not a bit meandering.
The Christian faith can (has the ability to) "move with the times" for lack of better phrase although not as fast as people would like they still lag behind quite a bit in aspects. islam however cannot, it is a rigid set of laws and practices that cannot be changed lest they be guilty of bidah (innovation) they must aspire to have the same values as a man from 600AD.
Not sure what this is in response to, so I'll leave it.
Scant little is written about Joseph in the gospels so to say he had multiple wives and children is just nonsense, it cant be backed up by any evidence. There are writings that posit he was a widower before he met Mary and that he lived to 111 years of age, these claims are spurious and are not accepted by the church.
Polygamy is not taught in the New Testament, evidenced simply by the fact that the church always practiced the marriage of one man and one wife, you can debate divorce and the abuse of divorce by the rich and powerful but that the church never had an allowance for polygamy in marriage.
How is the bible proven to be fake ?
Religion has turned into man made law? The Church and christianity influenced the culture of the Roman Empire and then Western Europe, a lot of our laws grew from church teachings over the centuries. Is that what you mean, you seem to have gotten it backwards. Laws are passed nowadays that go against Christian teachings, which shows the separation of state and church. That hardly makes the religion "worthless".
It is true that many people are persecuted for their religious beliefs, but not in the West as far as I can see. Christians are being persecuted in North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Eritrea, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, India and Syria. Muslims also face persecution in places such as China and India.
The west does not persecute any on the basis of their religious identity, instead they merely ask that religious identity one does not infringe upon the lives and practices of others and the state. Maybe don't claim to know my mental ability and I wont claim to know yours, no need to be insulting about people you don't know the first thing about.
The rest is not on topic imo and I'm unclear of the point.
Simple but you fail to let it sink in to your brain -- wtf you doing there interfering in THEIR countries, hence christians persecuted in
your words. As for N.Korea outsiders are normally usa destructive forces whom are there to do harm.
Again seems those whom post fail obviously because of brainwashing and lack of accumen to gain an independant personal and knowledgeable assessment from multiple sources.0 -
I find it disturbing that in a discussion about another ethnic grooming gang in the UK, the point has been changed to if an entire ethnicity or religion can be defined as especially disposed to pedophilia. Surely that is entirely irrelevant?
What is relevant is that many UK towns and cities have been changed into multicultural territories, with alien ethnic enclaves dropped en masse into otherwise English lands. This inevitably creates ethnic conflict. A common theme in ethnic conflict is sexual violence. In the Rwandan genocide by Hutus against Tutsis, up to half a million women were raped in just 100 days. In the Yugolsav wars, various camps operated by the Serbs were the site of systematic mistreatment and rape of other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia. The common theme here is not Islam, or who married who back in the 7th century. It is ethnic conflict fueled by multiculturalism. Amnesty International recognizes rape as a form of genocide against the targeted ethnic group - in this case, the English.
That is the problem. When foreign ethnic enclaves formed in the home towns of these English girls, it didn't matter where the foreigners originated from or what religion that they believed. Only that they were there and had access to those girls.0 -
---"The Christian faith can (has the ability to) "move with the times"---
So Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”...
amongst others which can be quoted - Move with the politicians which is MAN made law
and shows "The Christian faith can (has the ability to) "move with the times" is Fake and will do
anything to follow political Man Made Laws.
You either stand fast or prove the Fake religion is just a human control method for power.
i am sure some Mod may ban as "aggressive" but telling me ya all christians and god etc. but change to suit
when needed (political) is not a true religion.0 -
Advertisement
-
---"The Christian faith can (has the ability to) "move with the times"---
So Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”...
amongst others which can be quoted - Move with the politicians which is MAN made law
and shows "The Christian faith can (has the ability to) "move with the times" is Fake and will do
anything to follow political Man Made Laws.
You either stand fast or prove the Fake religion is just a human control method for power.
i am sure some Mod may ban as "aggressive" but telling me ya all christians and god etc. but change to suit
when needed (political) is not a true religion.
Well maybe it comes from the historical fact that the bible was put together by men who decided what to include, what to leave out and how it should be interpreted.0 -
Well maybe it comes from the historical fact that the bible was put together by men who decided what to include, what to leave out and how it should be interpreted.
Which only proves his point that its 'a human control method for power'. Either way, it shows that it is not a positive for a true religion (i.e. a divine truth from God) to compromise that divine truth to fit in better with convention. I'm not religious, but I'm not convinced by any group which is constantly looking over their shoulder to see if others approve of their message. Especially those who claim its from a higher power in the first place.0 -
Which only proves his point that its 'a human control method for power'. Either way, it shows that it is not a positive for a true religion (i.e. a divine truth from God) to compromise that divine truth to fit in better with convention. I'm not religious, but I'm not convinced by any group which is constantly looking over their shoulder to see if others approve of their message. Especially those who claim its from a higher power in the first place.
It is what it is. Religions change over time. All of them.0 -
A common theme in ethnic conflict is sexual violence.
...
It is ethnic conflict fueled by multiculturalism. Amnesty International recognizes rape as a form of genocide against the targeted ethnic group - in this case, the English.
That is the problem. When foreign ethnic enclaves formed in the home towns of these English girls, it didn't matter where the foreigners originated from or what religion that they believed. Only that they were there and had access to those girls.
A common theme in ANY conflict, is surely sexual violence, particularly rape which has often been used as a weapon of war - against men, women, and children. On that basis I would say ascribing their behaviours and attitudes to ethnicity is no different than ascribing their behaviours and attitudes to religion or whatever other personal or political agenda one has that they need to use this case in particular to suggest that the behaviour of the men in this case can be ascribed to a particular characteristic as opposed to recognising that it was simply because these men in particular chose to carry out their actions on their victims, something which simply cannot be ascribed to ethnic conflict as they weren’t deep in the heart of the Congo or cowering in a building made of shìtty sand that could crumble about them if a bomb went off within 50 yards of the place*. These men were living and working in towns in the UK, no ethnic conflict or any of the rest of it, not like they ever had to be armed to protect themselves or their families. This idea of painting the circumstances of this particular case as a demonstration of “ethnic conflict” is ludicrous, really.
*Was talking to a mate of mine from Afghanistan the other day before this happened and this particular case didn’t come up, but he was telling me after 10 years of living in Ireland he wanted to go back and see his family and friends, and he described the conflict there as a normal everyday thing for his family and friends, who were endlessly amused by his constant fears for his safety. He’d basically forgotten what it was like because he’d been gone from the country for as long as he had and had chosen to leave because he wanted to educate himself and see the world. Nice chap, not particularly interested in ethnic conflict or fundamentalist religion or any of the rest of it, very well educated though, from a country where education isn’t particularly high on their agenda as opposed to perpetuating conflict and wars.0 -
It is what it is. Religions change over time. All of them.
Its not an admirable quality of a religion though. That it's followers are willing to compromise on the sacred/divine truths to fit in better with conventional society is nothing to respect.
The issue is not that Islam wont accept European morality. It is that Islamic enclaves are in European countries. Islamic people could believe whatever they want and it wouldn't be an issue for Europeans if they weren't forced to share the same territory.
That is the core issue. Not the McDonaldisation ( or lack-thereof) of Islam.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »A common theme in ANY conflict, is surely sexual violence, particularly rape which has often been used as a weapon of war - against men, women, and children.
I don't know if I'd say *any* conflict.On that basis I would say ascribing their behaviours and attitudes to ethnicity is no different than ascribing their behaviours and attitudes to religion
Religion is a defining characteristic of many ethnic groups so you're not actually making a point there.These men were living and working in towns in the UK, no ethnic conflict or any of the rest of it, not like they ever had to be armed to protect themselves or their families.
Being armed is not a defining characteristic of any ethnic group to my knowledge (does NRA membership constitute an ethnicity?). You might be too evolved to belong to an ethnic group that isnt defined by consumption of a mass produced consumer product, but it doesn't mean the rest of the world subscribes to that idiocy. English girls have suffered the consequences of that idiocy for decades now.0 -
multiculture BUT with our LAWS as seen Does not work.I find it disturbing that in a discussion about another ethnic grooming gang in the UK, the point has been changed to if an entire ethnicity or religion can be defined as especially disposed to pedophilia. Surely that is entirely irrelevant?
What is relevant is that many UK towns and cities have been changed into multicultural territories, with alien ethnic enclaves dropped en masse into otherwise English lands. This inevitably creates ethnic conflict. A common theme in ethnic conflict is sexual violence. In the Rwandan genocide by Hutus against Tutsis, up to half a million women were raped in just 100 days. In the Yugolsav wars, various camps operated by the Serbs were the site of systematic mistreatment and rape of other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia. The common theme here is not Islam, or who married who back in the 7th century. It is ethnic conflict fueled by multiculturalism. Amnesty International recognizes rape as a form of genocide against the targeted ethnic group - in this case, the English.
That is the problem. When foreign ethnic enclaves formed in the home towns of these English girls, it didn't matter where the foreigners originated from or what religion that they believed. Only that they were there and had access to those girls.
examples is forced culture as usa
european "invaders" forced indiginous indians (actual americans) to conform.
australia
european "invaders" forced indiginous aborigine (actual australiens) to conform
some may say a little two faced in critism of how others behave in what you term your country.
This is perfect example and reason for anarchic communism and NO nothing to do with soviet russia
do a bit of reading.0 -
-
Any that has tried has been destroyed by governments whom fear loss of power and their large pay packetsAny example where it does work?
As stated anarchic communism should work but the snouts in trough brigade will block
in order they retain power.
Lets look at an example that is a "contoversy" issue
age of consent == so 18 in your country and you go to country where it is 14 and Your country
charge you with statuary rape. (marry a 14 year old and bring back to usa\europe see what happens).
a citizen of that country travels to your country and will be charged with the same.
it has been posted elswhere the question Why india raised from \ to 18 and the only answer is
usa forced by trade threat ie " 18 is age and as you are lower we cannot trade with pedos".
Or will you state that an ancient community (usa is young relatively) has after thousands of years
just now learnt that "western christian moral" is correct and outweighs their experience and time.
If hinge your argument on equality issues amongst others then usa etc. must hand back the land
to their indiginous indians whom they took it from by force.0 -
Any that has tried has been destroyed by governments whom fear loss of power and their large pay packets.
So that is a no then.
As far as it goes, multiculturalism has been imposed by governments upon their people, not in spite of them. People simply want to be themselves, and be represented by themselves within their own territory. They don't want multinational empires. No-one ever profited by dying on some foreign field far from their homeland. That is why nationalism post WW1 (as in Ireland) spelt the death knell of multi-national empires that previously dominated Europe. The Irish had experienced governance within a multicultural UK. It failed. It had failed previously. It would fail after. It will always fail.
As the Americans pronounced, the people (whoever they are) will in the long term only accept government by the people, for the people and of the people. Anything else is not in their interests.0 -
Advertisement
-
cmon wake up please -- you not see latest usa election - it was not the peopleSo that is a no then.
As far as it goes, multiculturalism has been imposed by governments upon their people, not in spite of them. People simply want to be themselves, and be represented by themselves within their own territory. They don't want multinational empires. No-one ever profited by dying on some foreign field far from their homeland. That is why nationalism post WW1 (as in Ireland) spelt the death knell of multi-national empires that previously dominated Europe. The Irish had experienced governance within a multicultural UK. It failed. It had failed previously. It would fail after. It will always fail.
As the Americans pronounced, the people (whoever they are) will in the long term only accept government by the people, for the people and of the people. Anything else is not in their interests.
it was money and power aided by media.
if a community of alcoholics with their own laws and you visit\join them == then you do so
without the thought or intention of changing them. you "know better" or have large army is
the proof that you want POWER not peaceful coexistance.
hence my earlier words of the ** Failure** of multiculteral BUT OUR LAWS0 -
I don't know if I'd say *any* conflict.
That’s fair enough, I’d still say it was though, as it has been throughout human history, not confined to any particular ethnic groups either.Religion is a defining characteristic of many ethnic groups so you're not actually making a point there.
Are you trying to tank your own earlier point in which you criticised an association with religion, and now you’re saying that religion is a defining characteristic of many ethnic groups as though religion and ethnicity are intertwined and the people who were making the association with religion may have had a point?Being armed is not a defining characteristic of any ethnic group to my knowledge (does NRA membership constitute an ethnicity?). You might be too evolved to belong to an ethnic group that isnt defined by consumption of a mass produced consumer product, but it doesn't mean the rest of the world subscribes to that idiocy. English girls have suffered the consequences of that idiocy for decades now.
No, my point about the lack of necessity for these men to be armed is that they weren’t in any ethnic conflict, any more than WASPs in the US are in any sort of an ethnic conflict, they just like owning more guns than anyone else, but they’ll hide their egos behind their second amendment rights.
I’m certainly not so evolved that I don’t belong to an ethnic group that isn’t defined by consumption of a mass produced consumer product (if we’re still talking about religion at least), but any suggestion that I and my friend from Uganda who is also Roman Catholic are ethnically similar would likely demonstrate that religion is definitely not a defining characteristic of ethnicity.
I would feel as though I were subscribing to idiocy if I imagined that what these particular men did to these particular girls was motivated by anything other than simply because the men involved chose these girls because they were already social outcasts and these men could be fairly confident that they could do what they did and there wouldn’t be too many people would care, and they were right.
You cannot realistically expect anyone to believe that people didn’t realise what was being done to these particular girls by these particular men? People weren’t afraid to protect these girls in case they might be called racist, they just didn’t care enough about these girls to want to protect them at all, and that’s why these men were able to do what they did to these girls with virtual impunity. It wasn’t because their victims were English or anything else, it was simply because people didn’t care about these particular girls in the first place, before they became the victims of these particular men.0 -
cmon wake up please -- you not see latest usa election - it was not the people
it was money and power aided by media.
I saw that, but the 2016 election Trump won despite the 'money and power aided by the media'. He lost in 2020 because he abandoned the people who elected him (White people generally, and white men in particular). The people were decisive. When moralised, Trump wins. When demoralised, Trump loses.
Trump didn't have 'money and power aided by the media' against him in 2016 and 2020 because he was multiculturalist. It was because he was not multiculturalist enough in 2016. He tried to appease his money/power/media critics in 2020, and instead he lost the people.
The people are never multiculturalist. They always view politics in an ethnic mindset. Money/Power/Media and the people are always in opposition. Money/Power/Media hates the people. They hate the very concept of the people.0 -
sorry but 2016 clinton was too bad even for the dems to elect.
I saw that, but the 2016 election Trump won despite the 'money and power aided by the media'. He lost in 2020 because he abandoned the people who elected him (White people generally, and white men in particular). The people were decisive. When moralised, Trump wins. When demoralised, Trump loses.
Trump didn't have 'money and power aided by the media' against him in 2016 and 2020 because he was multiculturalist. It was because he was not multiculturalist enough in 2016. He tried to appease his money/power/media critics in 2020, and instead he lost the people.
The people are never multiculturalist. They always view politics in an ethnic mindset. Money/Power/Media and the people are always in opposition. Money/Power/Media hates the people. They hate the very concept of the people.
the record of the shut downs and wind ups of charities\groups\orgs etc.
with that name and the "national security" issues which could be seen by citizens outside of usa.
of course trump now pardoning shows it is power and money -0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »That’s fair enough, I’d still say it was though, as it has been throughout human history, not confined to any particular ethnic groups either.
I'm not saying it's confined to any particular ethnic group. My objection to the way this thread has gone is that it's debating if one ethnic group (i.e. Muslims) are particularly prone to it. That's irrelevant. The existence of the foreign ethnic enclaves in England is the primary causal factor as to why English girls are exposed to sexual violence from foreign ethnic gangs. They might be Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims. Doesn't matter. What matters is they are in England.Are you trying to tank your own earlier point in which you criticised an association with religion, and now you’re saying that religion is a defining characteristic of many ethnic groups as though religion and ethnicity are intertwined and the people who were making the association with religion may have had a point?
I'm saying that ethnicity is multi-faceted and even groups which are racially/genetically indistinct may define themselves as group based entirely upon religious differences that seem entirely archaic to outsider. I.E. Shia and Sunni muslim groups in Iraq or Catholic and Protestant groups throughout Europe, not least Northern Ireland. But ultimately what I am saying is the claim that somehow ethnic differences are more valid than religious differences makes no sense at all. Not all ethnic differences are religious, but given religion is a huge determining factor in who you marry and have kids with, its practically one and the same.No, my point about the lack of necessity for these men to be armed is that they weren’t in any ethnic conflict, any more than WASPs in the US are in any sort of an ethnic conflict, they just like owning more guns than anyone else, but they’ll hide their egos behind their second amendment rights.
Then you will also accept that not all ethnic conflict require armed gun battles in the street. So you point about being armed is at best irrelevant.I’m certainly not so evolved that I don’t belong to an ethnic group that isn’t defined by consumption of a mass produced consumer product (if we’re still talking about religion at least), but any suggestion that I and my friend from Uganda who is also Roman Catholic are ethnically similar would likely demonstrate that religion is definitely not a defining characteristic of ethnicity.
I said many ethnic groups, not all. I always try to be precise because given I've been posting on these forums for 20+ years I'm grimly aware there will always be the guy trying to point score on exceptions rather than the rule. Thanks for proving my point.I would feel as though I were subscribing to idiocy if I imagined that what these particular men did to these particular girls was motivated by anything other than simply because the men involved chose these girls because they were already social outcasts and these men could be fairly confident that they could do what they did and there wouldn’t be too many people would care, and they were right.
If that were true - and its not - we wouldn't expect foreign ethnic groups to be over-represented in such gangs. And yet they are. Nor would we expect such men to make ethnic appeals in court, and yet they do.
You are in denial. You simply wouldn't state similar things about the mass sexual violence practiced in other ethnic conflicts. It is not my job to fix you or reverse the decades of propaganda you have consumed that makes you believe the idiocy you do.You cannot realistically expect anyone to believe that people didn’t realise what was being done to these particular girls by these particular men?
I don't claim that. My understanding is that the activities of these gangs was widely understood and accepted by their ethnic enclaves.People weren’t afraid to protect these girls in case they might be called racist, they just didn’t care enough about these girls to want to protect them at all, and that’s why these men were able to do what they did to these girls with virtual impunity. It wasn’t because their victims were English or anything else, it was simply because people didn’t care about these particular girls in the first place, before they became the victims of these particular men.
I just want you to take a step back and consider than in 2020, almost 2021, after all we know and after all the trials and convictions, you are still in denial that gangs of foreign men were raping and abusing English girls. Then consider how any policeman, social worker or indeed English girl would feel their concerns would be treated if you were in a position of authority and they came to you in 2000 and asked for your help.
You would almost certainly report them for comitting a hate crime. Your ilk collaborated with what was done to those girls, and what continues to be done.0 -
your terminology is as usual political aggresion -I'm not saying it's confined to any particular ethnic group. My objection to the way this thread has gone is that it's debating if one ethnic group (i.e. Muslims) are particularly prone to it. That's irrelevant. The existence of the foreign ethnic enclaves in England is the primary causal factor as to why English girls are exposed to sexual violence from foreign ethnic gangs. They might be Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims. Doesn't matter. What matters is they are in England.
I'm saying that ethnicity is multi-faceted and even groups which are racially/genetically indistinct may define themselves as group based entirely upon religious differences that seem entirely archaic to outsider. I.E. Shia and Sunni muslim groups in Iraq or Catholic and Protestant groups throughout Europe, not least Northern Ireland. But ultimately what I am saying is the claim that somehow ethnic differences are more valid than religious differences makes no sense at all. Not all ethnic differences are religious, but given religion is a huge determining factor in who you marry and have kids with, its practically one and the same.
Then you will also accept that not all ethnic conflict require armed gun battles in the street. So you point about being armed is at best irrelevant.
I said many ethnic groups, not all. I always try to be precise because given I've been posting on these forums for 20+ years I'm grimly aware there will always be the guy trying to point score on exceptions rather than the rule. Thanks for proving my point.
If that were true - and its not - we wouldn't expect foreign ethnic groups to be over-represented in such gangs. And yet they are. Nor would we expect such men to make ethnic appeals in court, and yet they do.
You are in denial. You simply wouldn't state similar things about the mass sexual violence practiced in other ethnic conflicts. It is not my job to fix you or reverse the decades of propaganda you have consumed that makes you believe the idiocy you do.
I don't claim that. My understanding is that the activities of these gangs was widely understood and accepted by their ethnic enclaves.
I just want you to take a step back and consider than in 2020, almost 2021, after all we know and after all the trials and convictions, you are still in denial that gangs of foreign men were raping and abusing English girls. Then consider how any policeman, social worker or indeed English girl would feel their concerns would be treated if you were in a position of authority and they came to you in 2000 and asked for your help.
You would almost certainly report them for comitting a hate crime. Your ilk collaborated with what was done to those girls, and what continues to be done.
the term rape and term abuse are now limitless open goalposts in how a case and situation is "deemed".
your employer is more than likely guilty of some form of abuse against the employees, just as the
government is on its citizens. coercion is listed as abuse and politicians are profesionals.
when it comes to matters of sexual nature from what i see the sense has left the heads of the
supposed profesionals to fit a political stance and dictats.
Not deny rape or abuse but as you must be able to see the issues are played on.
i have not read all the details of each individual and individual case but from what is seen
a wholesale "joblot" of charges are pushed in all allegations not just this as satanic rituals
etc.. investigations.
the issue of human sexual behaviour is thrown aside for the name and jail them without
consideration of the whole picture -
just like government keeps humans ignorant and fails to educate and bans teach\practice, then claims a human cannot consent
and so a crime is commited.
From my long life and education on this planet only a gay 14 year old male would complain of sexual
"happening" with an older female.
this now rampant as ignorant politicians allow the denial of nature and what is natural0 -
-
I'm not saying it's confined to any particular ethnic group. My objection to the way this thread has gone is that it's debating if one ethnic group (i.e. Muslims) are particularly prone to it. That's irrelevant. The existence of the foreign ethnic enclaves in England is the primary causal factor as to why English girls are exposed to sexual violence from foreign ethnic gangs. They might be Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims. Doesn't matter. What matters is they are in England.
I’m mot sure being exposed to sexual violence perpetrated by the natives makes it any more palatable tbh.I'm saying that ethnicity is multi-faceted and even groups which are racially/genetically indistinct may define themselves as group based entirely upon religious differences that seem entirely archaic to outsider. I.E. Shia and Sunni muslim groups in Iraq or Catholic and Protestant groups throughout Europe, not least Northern Ireland. But ultimately what I am saying is the claim that somehow ethnic differences are more valid than religious differences makes no sense at all. Not all ethnic differences are religious, but given religion is a huge determining factor in who you marry and have kids with, its practically one and the same.
We’re agreeing on that much at least, which is why when you made the suggestion that what these men did was based upon any ethnic conflict in a country where there is no ethnic conflict simply made no sense, to me at least. Though I’m beginning to understand that when you say ethnic conflict you don’t mean a conflict which actually involves actual conflict or sexual violence... which... nope, I’m still scratching my head on that one as to how it relates to the particular circumstances of this case.Then you will also accept that not all ethnic conflict require armed gun battles in the street. So you point about being armed is at best irrelevant.
No? I don’t accept that, because ethnic conflict suggests actual conflict is involved, and not just wily waving with a flag in one hand and an M16 in the other over a white picket fence to keep people off your immaculately groomed lawn! My point about the men in this particular case is that they were not in a country torn apart by tribal warfare between ethnic groups who are in an actual conflict with each other, where men, women and children are killed in conflicts between warring ethnic groups.I said many ethnic groups, not all. I always try to be precise because given I've been posting on these forums for 20+ years I'm grimly aware there will always be the guy trying to point score on exceptions rather than the rule. Thanks for proving my point.
I know what you said, and I’m genuinely making an effort here to point out that it’s not because of their belonging to any particular ethnic group that they chose to sexually exploit the children involved based upon their belonging to another ethnic group. If that were truly the case, then they wouldn’t have been so careful in who they actually picked given that the majority of young girls in the UK are white. Maybe fake tan confuses the fcukers!If that were true - and its not - we wouldn't expect foreign ethnic groups to be over-represented in such gangs. And yet they are. Nor would we expect such men to make ethnic appeals in court, and yet they do.
It is true, and that’s why foreign ethnic groups are actually not over-represented in statistics from the UK relating to child sexual exploitation. We see them over-represented in media reports, which is clearly not the same thing as criminal statistics relating to child sexual exploitation in the UK. I linked to this article already, but here it is again and one of the important points to take from it is this -
Nazir Afzal is the Crown Prosecution Service’s former lead on child sexual abuse and the prosecutor most responsible for bringing down grooming gangs. The media, he observes, pounce on cases involving Asians, but often ignore those involving white perpetrators.
“Grooming gang” is not a legal category. Group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) falls under a range of offences, from rape to conspiracy to incite prostitution. In only some cases, often when non-whites are involved, is ethnicity recorded. All this makes it difficult to ascertain the facts and behoves us to be cautious.
We’re told 84% of grooming gangs are Asian. But where’s the evidence?You are in denial. You simply wouldn't state similar things about the mass sexual violence practiced in other ethnic conflicts. It is not my job to fix you or reverse the decades of propaganda you have consumed that makes you believe the idiocy you do.
I would, and I did, until you corrected me and suggested that you wouldn’t say that sexual violence or rape is used as a weapon in ALL conflicts, whereas I would, and still do, because I know of no conflict in human history where sexual violence and rape was NOT used as a weapon even before humans engaged in socially distanced shooting and bombing where they didn’t have to get so up close and personal with their targets. Somehow they imagine that shooting and bombing people from a safe distance is less barbaric than rape and sexual violence. I believe it was Lyndon Johnson who came up with that particular propaganda after the Vietnam war, that the US would no longer send men overseas to fight wars. On looking for that particular quote I can’t find it now (turns out there were numerous propagandised quotes from various politicians about the US involvement in the Vietnam war, and we know how that turned out). Closest I can find now is this one -
“We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” —President Lyndon Johnson in a speech at Akron University on October 21, 1964, two weeks before the presidential election.
I don’t imagine he was referring to the raping of thousands of Vietnamese men, women and children by US troops, nor do I imagine he was referring to the raping and sexual violence inflicted by some US troops on their own troops!
Rape Was Rampant During the Vietnam War. Why Doesn’t US History Remember This?
That’s probably not the kind of propaganda you were referring to having to fix either, it’s not just Americans who are uncomfortable so uncomfortable with their own history that they’re so quick to point fingers elsewhere whenever the opportunity arises.I don't claim that. My understanding is that the activities of these gangs was widely understood and accepted by their ethnic enclaves.
And it would seem from your next paragraph that you’re saying that not only were their activities widely understood and accepted by their ethnic enclaves, but their activities would be widely understood by people such as myself, or as you put it - my “ilk” (well I appreciate at least you don’t mince your words!), would almost certainly endeavour to see their victims convicted of a hate crime, or that I would collaborate with anyone to commit rape and child sexual exploitation.I just want you to take a step back and consider than in 2020, almost 2021, after all we know and after all the trials and convictions, you are still in denial that gangs of foreign men were raping and abusing English girls. Then consider how any policeman, social worker or indeed English girl would feel their concerns would be treated if you were in a position of authority and they came to you in 2000 and asked for your help.
You would almost certainly report them for comitting a hate crime. Your ilk collaborated with what was done to those girls, and what continues to be done.
I guess now is a bad time to relate the story about how my Ugandan friend suggested I not let my child play with the local Muslim children as they would try to convert him. I didn’t have the heart to tell her either that my sister had converted to Islam and apart from sprouting wings and a weird tail, she hadn’t changed a bit.*
In case you couldn’t tell, I made up that last bit about the wings and tail. She converted to Islam and married a doctor in the UK who happened to be Muslim. She didn’t actually change at all, still the same person, still Irish, still a ball breaker, but y’know, can’t choose your family and all that.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »We’re agreeing on that much at least
We don't, given you still haven't accepted religion is a defining characteristic of some but not all ethnic groups. Such a simple point to concede as a miscommunication in good faith, yet here you are still contesting it for the sake of what exactly? Personal pride?Though I’m beginning to understand that when you say ethnic conflict you don’t mean a conflict which actually involves actual conflict or sexual violence.
Conflict always involves conflict. Conflict doesn't always involve open warfare. If you were debating in good faith, these commonly accepted concepts wouldn't be so contested by you.I know what you said, and I’m genuinely making an effort here
That you admit you knew what I said and then misrepresented it to score points demonstrates you are not being genuine. All your contributions have to be viewed within your proven willingness to misrepresent things.“Grooming gang” is not a legal category.
So what?
We’re told 84% of grooming gangs are Asian. But where’s the evidence?
The Guardian? I'm going to need a valid source for your claims.I would, and I did, until you corrected me and suggested that you wouldn’t say that sexual violence or rape is used as a weapon in ALL conflicts, whereas I would, and still do, because I know of no conflict in human history where sexual violence and rape was NOT used as a weapon
But as seen above, you simply wouldn't classify what happened to those English girls as an ethnic conflict. Right? That is your handy escape hatch to confront the reality of what happens when you create foreign ethnic enclaves in England. Mental gymnastics and outright denial.
As I said, its not my job to fix the decades of educational and media trauma you have suffered to make you think the things you do.And it would seem from your next paragraph that you’re saying that not only were their activities widely understood and accepted by their ethnic enclaves, but their activities would be widely understood by people such as myself, or as you put it - my “ilk” (well I appreciate at least you don’t mince your words!), would almost certainly endeavour to see their victims convicted of a hate crime, or that I would collaborate with anyone to commit rape and child sexual exploitation.
What hate crime would you convict them under? Above you've gone to such trouble to deny there was any ethnic motivation to their crimes. They were just some guys who randomly assembled to target some girls, right? So where is the hate crime?
Give it a rest with the bull****. At least own your beliefs. Your mindset enabled these gangs and continues to enable them. As Naz Shah might say, ‘Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.’ All your ilk could do was giggle about 'Muslamic Ray Guns'.I didn’t have the heart to tell her either that my sister had converted to Islam
Who cares?0 -
Advertisement
-
We don't, given you still haven't accepted religion is a defining characteristic of some but not all ethnic groups. Such a simple point to concede as a miscommunication in good faith, yet here you are still contesting it for the sake of what exactly? Personal pride?
Why would I agree to something I don’t believe is true? That’s why I wouldn’t concede that there is any relationship at all between ethnicity and religion and why I thought you were making the point that it was lamentable that anyone would try to link the circumstances in this particular case with religion, you prefer to link it to ethnicity, and then suggest that Muslim is an ethnicity? That’s where I became genuinely lost.Conflict always involves conflict. Conflict doesn't always involve open warfare. If you were debating in good faith, these commonly accepted concepts wouldn't be so contested by you.
And where does ethnic conflict not involve warfare of some description? That’s your basis for suggesting that the circumstances in this particular case involving a small group of men and the sexual exploitation of children amount to an ethnic conflict, or are the result of an ethnic conflict. Not all cases of ethnic conflict involve warfare or sexual violence, except in circumstances where it suits you to say that they are the result of ethnic conflict. I’d say that was a rather convenient myself.That you admit you knew what I said and then misrepresented it to score points demonstrates you are not being genuine. All your contributions have to be viewed within your proven willingness to misrepresent things.
So what?
We’re told 84% of grooming gangs are Asian. But where’s the evidence?
The Guardian? I'm going to need a valid source for your claims.
I’m neither interested in point scoring, nor sweeping generalisations about any particular groups in any given society, that’s why I commended you on your willingness to speak freely as opposed to mincing your words. I prefer when people are straight rather than dancing around playing silly buggers. I pointed to the most pertinent quote in the article spoken by the CPS former lead on child sexual abuse and the prosecutor most responsible for bringing down grooming gangs -
Nazir Afzal is the Crown Prosecution Service’s former lead on child sexual abuse and the prosecutor most responsible for bringing down grooming gangs. The media, he observes, pounce on cases involving Asians, but often ignore those involving white perpetrators.
And I know it’s another Guardian link but at this stage I’m of the belief that you’re hardly interested in discussing the issue in good faith and would rather divert and distract from having to acknowledge that your assertions about ethnicity are just misguided at best, misleading at worst -
Nazir Afzal, the former chief crown prosecutor in the north-west, who brought prosecutions over the Rochdale grooming gangs, welcomed the report. “It confirms that white men remain the most common offenders, which is something rarely mentioned by rightwing commentators,” he said.
“However, it is not shy in reflecting that south Asian and British Pakistani men are disproportionately found in high-profile cases.
“The danger is that by focusing entirely on the ethnicity of the offender, we miss the bigger picture, which is how the unheard, the left-behind women and girls, are invariably the victims. That’s where the government’s attention and action should be primarily focused.”
Most child sexual abuse gangs made up of white men, Home Office report saysBut as seen above, you simply wouldn't classify what happened to those English girls as an ethnic conflict. Right? That is your handy escape hatch to confront the reality of what happens when you create foreign ethnic enclaves in England. Mental gymnastics and outright denial.
As I said, its not my job to fix the decades of educational and media trauma you have suffered to make you think the things you do.
You’re right, I wouldn’t class the circumstances in this particular case as the result of an ethnic conflict, and not simply because it would mean conceding a small point in your favour, but simply because it’s bullshìt, much like your patronising lamenting that it’s not your job to fix “decades of educational and media trauma” you claim I have “suffered to make me think the things I do”. It’s quite obvious that to you it’s not just a small point to concede in a discussion in good faith, because you’re just going straight for the jugular now in trying to undermine my opinion because I don’t agree with your assertions about the circumstances in this particular case being the result of any ethnic conflict in the UK, something which you appear to have come up with based upon your own exposure to some pretty shìtty ideas.What hate crime would you convict them under? Above you've gone to such trouble to deny there was any ethnic motivation to their crimes. They were just some guys who randomly assembled to target some girls, right? So where is the hate crime?
Give it a rest with the bull****. At least own your beliefs. Your mindset enabled these gangs and continues to enable them. As Naz Shah might say, ‘Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.’ All your ilk could do was giggle about 'Muslamic Ray Guns'.
Ehh, it’s you who accused me (and my ilk) of being almost certain to see the victims accused of a hate crime, and now you’re asking me what hate crime would I convict them under? And you’re suggesting I give it a rest with the bullshìt and own my beliefs? I’d suggest taking your own advice and taking a step back to look at your own posts before you start accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being complicit in an ethnic conflict against young white girls in the UK or enabling foreign gangs of men to groom young white girls in the UK. Because that accusation isn’t based upon ethnicity, it’s based upon simply disagreeing with your assertions about an ethnic conflict involving foreign gangs in the UK!Who cares?
Well you care, obviously! You care quite a lot about foreign gangs causing ethnic conflict in the UK, but not all ethnic conflicts involve sexual violence or warfare apparently, just the ones you identify as having that characteristic, where other ethnic conflicts do not, apparently. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to conclude at this stage your assertions are just complete nonsense, as you’ll ascribe them to anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of their ethnicity or their religion or anything else - they disagree with you they can get in the boat with all the other people of foreign ethnic extraction. At least then you can be guaranteed that white girls in the UK will only be exposed to sexual violence, exploitation and rape by their own “ilk”, as you put it.
That happens already, it just doesn’t make the news headlines for some... peculiar reason?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement